Pvt.Tom Posted December 22, 2000 Share Posted December 22, 2000 Does anyone know why BTS decided to give the Allies such a large point advantage when buying Armor for QB Meeting Engagents? If you look at 1.05 the Allies and Axis get to spend an equal number of points for Armor, but under 1.1B22 the Allies have a 3 to 2 advantage. In a 3000 point battle that translates to 900 points for Allies and only 600 for the Axis. Seems like a pretty big change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GriffinCheng+ Posted December 22, 2000 Share Posted December 22, 2000 Check if you have seleced "Allied Attacking", which is default. The attacking side always have points advantage. Griffin. ------------------ "When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI." "Can't get enough Tank?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther131 Posted December 22, 2000 Share Posted December 22, 2000 Nope...Pvt Tom is correct. I just checked. It is odd that there is a points difference for a meeting engagement. I tried a 1000 points combined arms, meeting engagement, and axis as attacker. Same thing, Armor: 300 allies, 200 axis. I find this odd, and bewildering. (and hoping for it to be a mistake) I just hope it is evened out becouse now, since the new beta patch(s) 21 22 and 23, the allies seem to use the tungstan much more quickly and therefor decimating axis tanks much more quickly. I am finding that the allis armor and axis armor are on a much more level playing field then what may have been the case in real world historic WWII. Or at least what is the sterotype thought to allied and axis tanks. Also...I was wondering why in a combined arms force is armor points reduced significantly say in a 1000 pt combined battle it has gone from 400 in 1.05 to 300 in b21 and b22, to 200 for axis and 300 for allies in b23. I am slightly preplexed by this. Then of course with the point reduction given in armor selection in combined arms, the overall price on a regular heavy tank for axis (Tiger, KT, JagdT, Panther, JagdP) has gone up though slight, is significant. I guess what annoys me most is that I am used to the 1000 pt combined arms battle. I am used to the 400 pts you get for armor in that battle. I knew what I could get with a 1000 pt combined arms meeting engagment. Now I don't. Now, it becomes reduced to 300, ok not too bad, I can live with that, but then, it gets reduced to 200 pts. 200 pts is not much in a combined arms battle meeting engagment. I am sure the reason why must have some historical reason for it or something that is way beyond my insight, but 400 to 300 to 200 and then upping the allies back up to 300 from 200 and leaving the axis at 200 in armor selection seems unfair to me in this game. I just reread and checked the readme file for b23. No word of reduced points for axis armor in combined arms meeting engagement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther131 Posted December 22, 2000 Share Posted December 22, 2000 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 22, 2000 Share Posted December 22, 2000 First let's be clear that in "Armor" formations in quick battles, the points available to Axis and Allies for armor are the same (100%). But for combined arms the Allies are allowed to use a larger chunk for armor (but less for the vehicles cetegory). This is because of two things: 1. The Germans have a much wider range of choice in combat effective vehicles that fall into the "vehicles" category rather than the "armor" category (e.g. all the cannon-armed halftracks). 2. The real German army was more likely to put non-tank AFVs in front-line combat than the Allies were. This is mainly a reflection of the numbers and types of vehicles that they had at their disposal. Giving equal portions for armor to Axis and Allies in combined arms would result in Allied formations that are way too heavy on halftracks. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt.Tom Posted December 22, 2000 Author Share Posted December 22, 2000 Maybe I am off on this but I thought the point system was designed to make PBEM games balanced and didn't have anything to do with historical values, i.e. the Allies had 4 Sherman for every Tiger but Tigers don't cost 4 times as much as a Sherman in CM. Doesn't this change contradict the design of the point system forcing people to play QBs in a more historical way? I don't know about everyone else but I don't think a 50mm Puma or a 75mm HT is close to a Sherman. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted December 22, 2000 Share Posted December 22, 2000 I don't think it's contradictory, it just allows the Allies to field a superior number of AFVs, as they were truly able to. The idea here is that a German 75mm HT has a great advantage over an Allied .50cal HT. Giving the Allies more points to buy armor, allows them to buy AFVs that can stand with the German HTs and their larger guns. Without this change, the Allies are much more easily outgunned. I, for one, am fond of this change. ------------------ WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - THIS SIG FILE BELONGS TO A COMPLETE FOO. MR T WOULDN'T BE SO KIND AS TO WRINKLE AN EYEBROW AT THIS UNFORTUNATE BEING. PLEASE OFFER HIS PARENTS AND COHABITANTS ALL SYMPATHY POSSIBLE. MAY BE CONTAGIOUS. CONTAINS ARTIFICIAL SWEETNER, INTELLIGENCE AND WIT. STAND WELL CLEAR AND LIGHT WICK. BY ORDER PETERNZ Damn Croda. That is one funny sig!!! must suck to be you - Hiram Sedai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted December 22, 2000 Share Posted December 22, 2000 I'm fond of it as well. It's inherantly unbalanced to allow the Germans equal armor points. It was in favor of the Germans before the first patch, and the second. Now it seems more balanced. All you whinin' Jerrys oughta toughen up! You don't see me whining about insufficient and insufficiently accurate US artillery do you? I want to advance behind rolling thunder... but can I? Nooooooo.... You Krauts should be happy it's just even! ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther131 Posted December 22, 2000 Share Posted December 22, 2000 Gee...what if you use the armor itself as a comparison between the allied halftrack and axis halftrack? Clearly with the pt system in place the advantage shifts towards the allies. For instance...a Shermans armor is 3 times as thick as an axis halftrack. The main problem I have with the new points system in combined arms for armor is that now I am unable to buy a KTiger. In a 1000 point battle that is. I enjoyed it very much and enjoyed combining the rest of my forces around that Ktiger. Of course when somone buys a Ktiger in a 1000 point battle, that is the only tank they get. If the argument is that the axis halftracks out weigh the allied halftracks, why not lower the axis halftrack points in combined arms? This would make the most sense considering that it is the halftrack that is being argued unbalanced. I dont see how reducing tanks armor for axis helps this. The other problem is the argument presented above. My immpression was that the points system in CM's QB was historicaly based on a units point base and not on a points differential. ie: the 300 to 200 difference in armor. Being that the points were simply to keep the game played fair. With no historical reference in quick battles. And this would be up to the opponents to discuss prior to the game if they wanted it. Just a thought though. I guess mainly, I am upset that I am unable to buy my KT and revolve my unit purchase around that. ie: support the KT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt.Tom Posted December 22, 2000 Author Share Posted December 22, 2000 Polar, You are in luck, they also incresed the number of points the Allies can spend on Artillery in the Beta patch. Merry Christmans. Pvt.Tom [This message has been edited by Pvt.Tom (edited 12-22-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlow Posted December 22, 2000 Share Posted December 22, 2000 As someone who generally plays the Allies, this will not impact my force selection as much as some other people; however, my vote is for 30% armor for both Axis and Allied in QB. The new 20% level does not provide sufficient flexibility in any smaller battles. With the current level, the Germans can't even buy a Mark IV in a 500 pt battle, and it makes it difficult to purchase an assault gun platoon for a combined arms attack in any moderately sized battle. I didn’t here any sort of outcry for the tweak to 20% armor. If anything, there were complaints when the autoselection didn't purchase enough armor in combined arms battles. ------------------ This message brought to you by Marlow's Salvage and Wrecking Service, Proud Sponsor of The Cesspool aka The 'Meeks currently exists as Polar Bear excrement' Memorial Thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted December 22, 2000 Share Posted December 22, 2000 Panther, it seems to me that your options are to play a 1,250 pt QB or give the Axis a small point advantage to allow your KT. I think the benefit of this is that it allows for a more historical allocation of points if desired by the user. The point value of the individual unit reflects it's usefulness, the point allocations in the QB reflect a historical percentage of each type of unit. Otherwise, there would be no need to differentiate bewtween Combined Arms/Infantry/Armor and such, as you could be allowed to purchase any amount of any type of unit. ------------------ WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - THIS SIG FILE BELONGS TO A COMPLETE FOO. MR T WOULDN'T BE SO KIND AS TO WRINKLE AN EYEBROW AT THIS UNFORTUNATE BEING. PLEASE OFFER HIS PARENTS AND COHABITANTS ALL SYMPATHY POSSIBLE. MAY BE CONTAGIOUS. CONTAINS ARTIFICIAL SWEETNER, INTELLIGENCE AND WIT. STAND WELL CLEAR AND LIGHT WICK. BY ORDER PETERNZ Damn Croda. That is one funny sig!!! must suck to be you - Hiram Sedai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts